"Kill/Fill" - not "Kill Bill"
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Azidonis said
"...Right. So this is a change to The Book of the Law. Just wanted to clarify that, as it seemed like you implied they weren't changing it, when this is definitely a change."
this is a change in versions of The Book of the Law (Liber CCXX). "The Book of the Law" (not versions) is an ideal, and one whose referent varies somewhat."
@nigris said
"...this 'moulding' of Liber CCXX has been going on for years, not just recently. the reference standard had been a conceived interpretation of Liber L, naturally. this conception seems to have shifted. in the sense of 'changing a Class A document', i doubt anyone directly involved conceives of it in that way at all."
I don't know why you keep jumping to words like "moulding"."
because we're talking about Liber CCXX, and that appears never to have received the same content and typesetting since the day it was first typed up (only stabilized when photoreproduced). those changes were errors creeping in from the first typescript through to today."It's clearly a change. An open, straight-forward, change from the MS to the TS. Any other words to make it seem like it's 'not that big of a change' are intentionally misleading, in my opinion."
I think if you read my earliest contributions on this subject you'll see that i was pointing out the fact that these kinds of changes (to the manuscript) had been happening from the first days of reception. if you accept those changes (like the Scarlet Woman's addition, or the intruded line from Crowley, or the prepended 'Had!'), then where do you draw the line and why? in the manuscript there are entire lines crossed off and corrected, so this notion of 'not changing so much as the style of a letter' was abandoned long ago. it's always been about some arbitrarily accepted ideal surrounding the manuscript at a given time and the publisher's interpretation of what the 'real' document included, in the best cases based on the expressions of the Scribe."
@nigris said
"
"Unless you just see The Book of the Law as the manuscript only, with Liber CCXX not being The Book of the Law."
it seems difficult to support that, given that it's the latter with the name and the former as "Liber L. vel Legis". see book-of-the-law.com/#HOLO00 for what i am pointing to here."
I see that you agree that both the MS AND the TS are "The Book of the Law"."
odd vision, given that i said just the opposite. I do not equate "Liber L. vel Legis" and "Liber Al vel Legis" as titles, though they are close. do you know what "L." stands for?@Azidonis said
"This refers to "adoption", and I would have advised Crowley against ever doing it, with his list of Saints. But what do I know?"
{elaborating:}
"...instead of learning a person well enough to see how they are executing their Will within their own chosen paradigm or system, a tendency exists to try and transplant the idea of Thelema onto those same people, which is a form of judgement."
I join with you in opposing such things. I've seen it in every cultic milieu."
@nigris said
"...refining Class A documents to proper conformity to their ideal form (each has one, based on a set of criteria perhaps spoken and published, perhaps never mentioned to the public)..."
Again, instead of "mould" you used "refine", but you admitted that it is a "change". It's a change...."
disagreed. we simply disagree about the facts. you are talking about a transcendental or ideal as if everyone shared it and as if there is and was a given trigger-point at which we could observe it was 'changed'. nothing could be further from the truth, and if you were to look at the various editions of Liber CCXX through time then you'd see that they were fluctuating. if that fluctuation doesn't bother you, then you may just be talking about an ideal within a certain cultic context, in which case i can agree that such a small group can and has (at times) arrived at a consensus about what that ideal includes. I see that at this time the OTO does NOT have such a consensus about this ideal."Saying that everyone has an "ideal form" for a Class A document is misleading."
not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include."There is a definite instruction not to change even the style of a letter."
INdefinite instruction. we don't know to whom it was given, though we can infer it was to the Scribe. the Class A category didn't arrive with the scripture itself. it was assigned to the work by the Scribe, who then saw fit to break the letter of the rule. we need to ask at what point in time should have the changes ceased? if at the time of the first pass, then this did not occur. if at the time of the corrections and completions by the Scribe then this did not occur. if at the time of the additions by the Scarlet Woman, then this did not occur. if after all the changes by the Scribe and his Scarlet Woman which seemed necessary, then the typescript was bungled and included many errors. if after the typescript was corrected then this, arguably, has NEVER ONCE OCCURRED, though Frater Eshelman claims that there was a time when Crowley crowed that he'd "finally got it right" (later finding errors that needed correcting). Hymenaeus Beta found another one. why you see that it is necessary to draw the line at instructions rather that literal contents, i really do understand. it does say "fill" on Liber XXXI."Thus, the text itself is designed to have an objective effect on the subjective nature of our individual awarenesses."
not demonstrated or immediately apparent. not only did the Scribe claim not to have done so, but we have no access to the author so claimed. did the Scribe claim this? it wouldn't surprise me. he claimed many outrageous things about his scription. I've done so about my own."So, our own ideals of the Book may include an "ideal form" (or image), but the Book is pretty clearly supposed to remain as it was written in the MS."
again, if you literally mean that, then Liber CCXX has NEVER been printed correctly. the best that i've ever seen at this is what i am now attempting at book-of-the-law.com where i am attempting to showcase the manuscript's exact content as well as the scripture with descriptions of variations and commentary by Crowley and several others. -
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@nigris said
"this is a change in versions of The Book of the Law (Liber CCXX). "The Book of the Law" (not versions) is an ideal, and one whose referent varies somewhat."
A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions.
@nigris said
"
because we're talking about Liber CCXX, and that appears never to have received the same content and typesetting since the day it was first typed up (only stabilized when photoreproduced). those changes were errors creeping in from the first typescript through to today."What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?
@nigris said
"
I think if you read my earliest contributions on this subject you'll see that i was pointing out the fact that these kinds of changes (to the manuscript) had been happening from the first days of reception. if you accept those changes (like the Scarlet Woman's addition, or the intruded line from Crowley, or the prepended 'Had!'), then where do you draw the line and why? in the manuscript there are entire lines crossed off and corrected, so this notion of 'not changing so much as the style of a letter' was abandoned long ago. it's always been about some arbitrarily accepted ideal surrounding the manuscript at a given time and the publisher's interpretation of what the 'real' document included, in the best cases based on the expressions of the Scribe."I'm noting who is making the change. That Crowley and Rose made changes is fine by me. It's 'their' book. Also, those changes were apparently made 'at the direction of Aiwass'. The proposed change does not fit any of that criteria.
@nigris said
"
odd vision, given that i said just the opposite. I do not equate "Liber L. vel Legis" and "Liber Al vel Legis" as titles, though they are close. do you know what "L." stands for?""In the first edition this Book is called L. L is the sacred letter in the Holy Twelve-fold Table which forms the triangle that stabilizes the Universe. See "Liber 418". L is the letter of Libra, Balance, and 'Justice' in the Taro. This title should probably be "AL", "El", as the 'L' was heard of the Voice of Aiwaz, not seen. "AL" is the true name of the Book, for these letters, and their number 31, form the Master Key to its Mysteries." - Crowley
And just so you know, I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L.
As for Crowley's change a la Achad, that's Crowley's business.
I've continually tried to point out here that there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.
For instance, if he put the 'k' in his copy for some reason, maybe in thinking about changing that letter, that's his business. I'm okay with it. It's his book. But, he printed it every single time with an 'f', and the MS clearly has an 'f'. No typescript version of the book from Crowley has the 'k' printed.
Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question.
@nigris said
"
I join with you in opposing such things. I've seen it in every cultic milieu."Yes.
@nigris said
"
disagreed. we simply disagree about the facts. you are talking about a transcendental or ideal as if everyone shared it and as if there is and was a given trigger-point at which we could observe it was 'changed'. nothing could be further from the truth, and if you were to look at the various editions of Liber CCXX through time then you'd see that they were fluctuating. if that fluctuation doesn't bother you, then you may just be talking about an ideal within a certain cultic context, in which case i can agree that such a small group can and has (at times) arrived at a consensus about what that ideal includes. I see that at this time the OTO does NOT have such a consensus about this ideal."No. I've read the manuscript itself multiple times. In fact, I've learned to read the MS without referring to the TS, which is not at all easy, considering Crowley's atrocious handwriting.
And what I am saying, all I have been saying, is that the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem.
But, when Crowley goes through pains to make such corrections, and then prints a TS that he considers accurate, and does not even one time bother changing 'f' to 'k' in any rendition of the TS, then there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Crowley wanted it to remain 'f', and not 'k'.
As I said on the other forum, to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither.
@nigris said
"
not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include."Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?
@nigris said
"
INdefinite instruction. we don't know to whom it was given, though we can infer it was to the Scribe. the Class A category didn't arrive with the scripture itself. it was assigned to the work by the Scribe, who then saw fit to break the letter of the rule."Again, the initial changes were 'directed by Aiwass', according to Crowley.
The MS. shows what has been done, and why, as follows:
On page 6 Aiwaz instructs me to "write this (what he had just said) in whiter words," for my mind revelled at His phrase. He added at once "But go forth on," i.e., with His utterance, leaving the emendation until later. On page 19 I failed to hear a sentence, and (later on) the Scarlet Woman, invoking Aiwass, wrote in the missing words. (How? She was not in the room at the time, and heard nothing.) Page 20 of Cap. III, I got a phrase indistinctly, and she put it in, as for "B." The versified paraphrase of the hieroglyphs on the Stele being ready, Aiwaz allowed me to insert these later, so as to save time.These four apart, the MS. is exactly as it was written on those three days. The Critical Recension will explain theses points as they occur.
@nigris said
"
we need to ask at what point in time should have the changes ceased? if at the time of the first pass, then this did not occur. if at the time of the corrections and completions by the Scribe then this did not occur. if at the time of the additions by the Scarlet Woman, then this did not occur. if after all the changes by the Scribe and his Scarlet Woman which seemed necessary, then the typescript was bungled and included many errors. if after the typescript was corrected then this, arguably, has NEVER ONCE OCCURRED, though Frater Eshelman claims that there was a time when Crowley crowed that he'd "finally got it right" (later finding errors that needed correcting). Hymenaeus Beta found another one. why you see that it is necessary to draw the line at instructions rather that literal contents, i really do understand. it does say "fill" on Liber XXXI."Again, I'm okay with correcting typographical errors. "Oh, that first word is 'Had'. Why did you put Yad? Please change it to Had." or... "Oh, I see you left out a letter here, or made a typo there. Why did you send it to the press like that? Why didn't you call me? Nevermind. We'll correct it in future editions."
In NO edition did Crowley make a change from 'f' to 'k'. The best evidence for that is in a side note, in pencil.
Also, again, the "fill" was written in PENCIL. Had Crowley really wanted to change it, he could have erased the pencil marking 'f', changed it to 'k', and we would be none the wiser. But, he didn't. In over thirty years of publishing the book, Crowley never printed a published version of the book as "kill". And, the MS clearly says "fill".
Point being, there is not enough evidence to even make the change, if one were actually warranted.
@nigris said
"
not demonstrated or immediately apparent. not only did the Scribe claim not to have done so, but we have no access to the author so claimed. did the Scribe claim this? it wouldn't surprise me. he claimed many outrageous things about his scription. I've done so about my own.again, if you literally mean that, then Liber CCXX has NEVER been printed correctly. the best that i've ever seen at this is what i am now attempting at book-of-the-law.com where i am attempting to showcase the manuscript's exact content as well as the scripture with descriptions of variations and commentary by Crowley and several others."
I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue.
Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?
This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is,
"Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! ""fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Azidonis said
"A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions."
yes, it's just the way of cults. I agree it's a slippery slope. I tend to select my own preference as you do and proceed accordingly, unless i am trying to put forward an educational or study document, in which case i'll want to reflect as much variation is included in tradition."What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?"
that would be for Fr. Eshelman to answer, as i have only seen him refer to it. I have no reason to doubt this and think it is interesting.@nigris said
"...I'm noting who is making the change. That Crowley and Rose made changes is fine by me. It's 'their' book. Also, those changes were apparently made 'at the direction of Aiwass'. The proposed change does not fit any of that criteria."
transparent and excellently argued. your reasoning is completely supportable."...I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L."
a helpful clarification. since it is not my scripture i tend to refer to the numbers (XXXI, CCXX) so as to remain clear or refer to the both as "Crowley's scripture" and imply by the more exalted term outside a context of reference a category transcendent to both (and inclusive of other Lawbooks, Volumes of Sacred Law, etc., including my own, The Gospel of Satan)."...there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.... Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question."
again, completely supportable, wisely questioned and even opposed. I'm gleaning at this point that our primary obstacle was semantic, since i am agreeing, based on the premises you're specifying, with your conclusions (i have little invested in the matter myself since it isn't my scripture, and my role is to be sure i have the details in mind when helping others to get a clear picture of what went on prior to it arriving online)."...the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem."
understood, and so since you do not have the vellum book, how will you fill out the Stele lines? will you leave it as it is to be found in the manuscript? or do you want to complete it using some standard? is that standard supposing 'kill' in the vellum book? (why does Fr. Eshelman suppose it likely that the paraphrase has 'kill' in what was lost, yet still ignore this direction from Aiwass to quote the vellum, and to leave it as 'fill'? I never understood the logic, aside from the fact that, like you and many others have reasonably concluded, since no correction was issued in any Liber CCXX, then it ought remain as is?)"...to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither."
yes it does seem so. the argument, to be fair, was that the paraphrase was changed to kill in more than one instance of printing and proofreading. the most i can follow can be inferred is that Crowley wanted the paraphrase to be different than Liber CCXX."
@nigris said
"not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include."
Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?"
hey, i won't bother to try to justify, support, or deny the "inspired" reasons that cultists will arrive at their ideal versions. I know better than that. all that i am attempting to do is to participate in a 'fair hearing' of the logic where it can be known. in the instance of Hymenaeus Beta he has given a pretty clear set of data explaining why he will want to refine his ideal and may do so if he doesn't get a lot of opposition from interior to his order and church. I'm guessing based on previous implementation that 1) the issue isn't that important to some of those affected and 2) capitulation from inferiors will be consonant with oaths and vows already secured. ideas beyond this that Thelema is somehow coincident with the OTO seem, to me, completely unfounded. hey, they'll be doing us a favour. they'll stigmatize their Thelemic flavour by sigilizing (an Osirian quality to?) their scripture. yes, this is the slide down a slippery slope into sectarianism. set up a sect and expect that events like these will result in sectarianism. if one is not a participant in cults, in sects, then one does not encounter this."...I'm okay with correcting typographical errors.... ...there is not enough evidence to even make the change, if one were actually warranted."
I completely understand this conclusion and think that it is reasonable."I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue. Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?"
because, like you, i have not yet found the argument convincing. however. i am a responsible philosopher and have been attempting to bolster both sides of the argument strongly and find a way to see a way to agree with both before reaching a final decision. I'll take a long time to examine it and watch general Thelemic response before making that particular decision/change. I've been doing radical things with the commentary already (by moving numerological, gematric, and qabalistic explications to an appendix, which research indicates was planned) and to the content of Liber CCXX by trying as completely as possible to provide the manuscript through to the typescript (we seem to share this strong interest)."This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
please elaborate your reasoning on this point. how does it fulfill this comment and how does 'kill' not do so? thank you kindly for your time and attention. -
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
FYI position is: What matter is what made it to the manuscript of L., not what was in the original versification. I don't care what was in the original. When (in the immediate aftermath of the reception) he wrote "fill" on the physical manuscript, that (literally) became gospel. I make no room for mistakes at that point. Something impelled him to write "fill." I don't need to know what it was, only that it happened.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@nigris said
"
@Azidonis said
"A change in versions? Are we going to have a Baptist version, Catholic version, etc.? Slippery slope, when you mention versions."
yes, it's just the way of cults. I agree it's a slippery slope. I tend to select my own preference as you do and proceed accordingly, unless i am trying to put forward an educational or study document, in which case i'll want to reflect as much variation is included in tradition."Honestly, I try to have no preference. It's definitely not an easy task. Nor is it a hard task.
It's easy to do in an isolated environment, much harder to do in the social cultural trappings of a 'modern' environment.
In the current case though, I don't mind making a preference of "fill" over "kill". I think it has more to do with maintaining the integrity of the text than any 'scholarly findings'.
@nigris said
"
"What was it, the 1938 version that Crowley considered correct?"
that would be for Fr. Eshelman to answer, as i have only seen him refer to it. I have no reason to doubt this and think it is interesting."I think this is an appropriate place to cite: An Essay Concerning Liber CCXX and the Fill vs Kill Debate.
@nigris said
"
"...I've had the habit, for years, to call the book (both the MS and the TS) Liber L. I've pretty much always only called the MS Liber L."
a helpful clarification. since it is not my scripture i tend to refer to the numbers (XXXI, CCXX) so as to remain clear or refer to the both as "Crowley's scripture" and imply by the more exalted term outside a context of reference a category transcendent to both (and inclusive of other Lawbooks, Volumes of Sacred Law, etc., including my own, The Gospel of Satan)."Well, referring to the number is fine. In my opinion, we should not have to though. Liber CCXX should textually mirror Liber XXXI. I think the 'corrections' should be limited to typos that have occurred during printing, and the few corrections that Crowley himself cited in The Equinox of the Gods.
@nigris said
"
"...there is a difference between Crowley (or Rose) making any changes or alterations to the book, and other people.... Thus, it is the changes from 'scholarship' that I question."
again, completely supportable, wisely questioned and even opposed. I'm gleaning at this point that our primary obstacle was semantic, since i am agreeing, based on the premises you're specifying, with your conclusions (i have little invested in the matter myself since it isn't my scripture, and my role is to be sure i have the details in mind when helping others to get a clear picture of what went on prior to it arriving online)."The link I provided should help with some of the available details. Not sure if you've seen it yet or not.
@nigris said
"
"...the TS should reflect the MS. If some typist could not read or proof-read Crowley's handwriting correctly, that's not my problem."
understood, and so since you do not have the vellum book, how will you fill out the Stele lines? will you leave it as it is to be found in the manuscript? or do you want to complete it using some standard? is that standard supposing 'kill' in the vellum book? (why does Fr. Eshelman suppose it likely that the paraphrase has 'kill' in what was lost, yet still ignore this direction from Aiwass to quote the vellum, and to leave it as 'fill'? I never understood the logic, aside from the fact that, like you and many others have reasonably concluded, since no correction was issued in any Liber CCXX, then it ought remain as is?)"Honestly, I could care less what the vellum book, or any other book aside from Liber XXXI says. Further and again, that "fill" was written in pencil, and never changed, says more for Crowley's thoughts towards the integrity of the MS than a side note in a printed copy.
@nigris said
"
"...to say that Crowley "really did want to change 'f' to 'k', but he didn't," implies either incompetence or negligence on his part. I find him guilty of neither."
yes it does seem so. the argument, to be fair, was that the paraphrase was changed to kill in more than one instance of printing and proofreading. the most i can follow can be inferred is that Crowley wanted the paraphrase to be different than Liber CCXX."Well, both "fill" and "kill" have certain implications. But, Crowley definitely maintained "fill" when dealing with Libers XXXI and CCXX. Whatever he did with his poetry and his rituals are another subject, although closely related.
@nigris said
"
"
@nigris said
"not that everyone has one, only that there are variations in ideal amongst the Thelemic subculture as to what this ideal "The Book of the Law" does and does not include."
Because a couple of cronies saw a 'k' somewhere in a side note?"
hey, i won't bother to try to justify, support, or deny the "inspired" reasons that cultists will arrive at their ideal versions. I know better than that. all that i am attempting to do is to participate in a 'fair hearing' of the logic where it can be known. in the instance of Hymenaeus Beta he has given a pretty clear set of data explaining why he will want to refine his ideal and may do so if he doesn't get a lot of opposition from interior to his order and church."As I said before, H.B. is asserting that Crowley was either negligent or incompetent, if he is trying to say that Crowley really did want it to say "kill". That Crowley had worked with both versions in rituals and other renderings, but never once changed The Book of the Law itself, other than a side note which could mean anything, the 'logical' conclusion is that he drew some sort of conclusion, at some point, that both XXXI and CCXX should be "fill". On top of that, he made no mention anywhere of it being a discrepancy, and had over 30 years and many printings to make a change had he saw fit to do so.
@nigris said
"
I'm guessing based on previous implementation that 1) the issue isn't that important to some of those affected and
"Well, I'm not going to be hypocritical and call for "non-judgement" in one case and "judgement" in another. I do think that evidence exists more in favor of "Crowleyanity" than "Mastery" in relation to the masses though.
@nigris said
"
- capitulation from inferiors will be consonant with oaths and vows already secured."
It is my understanding that O.T.O. members take an Oath to not change the book.
Such an Oath does not exist in the A:.A:., but in the A:.A:. it is understood that it's quite simply a "no no", in any lineage of the A:.A:. that I have been affiliated with, at least. It's not even a question of changing the Book.
Hell, had I mentioned wanting to change the Book in my earlier years, I can see it now... "Get back to Work! You are letting yourself become too idle if you have time to think of frivolous nonsense like that!"
@nigris said
"
ideas beyond this that Thelema is somehow coincident with the OTO seem, to me, completely unfounded. hey, they'll be doing us a favour. they'll stigmatize their Thelemic flavour by sigilizing (an Osirian quality to?) their scripture. yes, this is the slide down a slippery slope into sectarianism. set up a sect and expect that events like these will result in sectarianism. if one is not a participant in cults, in sects, then one does not encounter this."The more sections (divisions) that occur, the further future generations will initially be from the truth.
@nigris said
"
"I've seen your website. It's an admirable venture. If the letters in the TS are faithful to the MS, then there is no issue. Also, I see that you have "fill" on your website. Why do you have it as "fill"?"
because, like you, i have not yet found the argument convincing. however. i am a responsible philosopher and have been attempting to bolster both sides of the argument strongly and find a way to see a way to agree with both before reaching a final decision."It seems useful to break out a list of logical fallacies, and begin to enumerate.
@nigris said
"
I'll take a long time to examine it and watch general Thelemic response before making that particular decision/change.
"Best of luck in this.
@nigris said
"
I've been doing radical things with the commentary already (by moving numerological, gematric, and qabalistic explications to an appendix, which research indicates was planned) and to the content of Liber CCXX by trying as completely as possible to provide the manuscript through to the typescript (we seem to share this strong interest)."I'm interested in it only in the light of the integrity of Crowley's work. It is my opinion that The Book of the Law is the very cornerstone of Crowley's entire system. To think that a person would spend their entire life on a text like this, to the point that they will drop everything they are doing in a split second just to do what they think the Book indicates that they should do, is an admirable display of willpower. And, the compassionate parts of me just cringe when I see people wanting to try and take advantage of his work for their own sake, whether for good or ill. And, when there is money involved, it becomes even more sickening.
@nigris said
"
"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
please elaborate your reasoning on this point. how does it fulfill this comment and how does 'kill' not do so?"I am working with time constraints at the moment. But, I will leave you a leading question, and maybe that will get the ball rolling for a later time.
Does "kill" relate better to the Formula of the Rosy Cross than "fill"? If so, how?
I maintain that it does not.
@nigris said
"thank you kindly for your time and attention."
Likewise. Until next time, sir.
@Jim Eshelman said
"FYI position is: What matter is what made it to the manuscript of L., not what was in the original versification. I don't care what was in the original. When (in the immediate aftermath of the reception) he wrote "fill" on the physical manuscript, that (literally) became gospel. I make no room for mistakes at that point. Something impelled him to write "fill." I don't need to know what it was, only that it happened."
Agreed.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Azidonis said
"
"This is also an opportunity to point to the new comment, which is, "Stanza 3 suggests the Rosicrucian Benediction:
May thy Mind be open unto the Higher!
May thy Heart be the centre of Light!
May thy Body be the Temple of the Rosy Cross! " "fill" fulfills this comment. "kill" does not."
{elaborating} I am working with time constraints at the moment. But, I will leave you a leading question, and maybe that will get the ball rolling for a later time. Does "kill" relate better to the Formula of the Rosy Cross than "fill"? If so, how? I maintain that it does not."
well, for a superordinary 'self-slain god'(?), i'm unsure what applies, but isn't a cross a death-inflicting symbol? not sure whether a rosy cross indicates more than some kind of death-rebirth scenario. if he's the self-slain and is still talking, maybe he went through death and is now telling about it? -
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
The total number of characters in CCXX is 23,520 (sans punctuation and the verse numbers from Chapter 1 as they are not included in the handwritten MS).
The total number of characters in CCXX III,37 = 420. R (200) + K (220).The Golden Dawn didnât have the true number attribution of the âKâ but there are 220 âKâs in the Book of the Law, relating to older Kabbalah where Kaph is of Solar origin. She is the hidden and concealed Mother. Where the Father is manifested she is hidden, and when she is manifested the Father is hidden. She is âthe lightâ, which is also the veil. Using Temple values:
ADM or AMD (Adam or the Fool) = 45.
45 x 5 = 225 AKD (Akkad â a city like Babylon, where the Akkadian Empire was centred, and the worship of the Goddess Anu/Innana was prominent.)As the 420 characters of III, 37 refer to the hiding of the Solar Mother (seen in the Chariot card) then we remove/hide 420 from the calculations to get a straight 23100 characters in CCXX, Which is VITAL (see II,15) when using Temple values: V = 9 + I = 211 + T = 11 = 231. The path of Lamed (aka ALR) also = 231 on the Temple.
Finally, using the value of the Lost Word rounded up two steps then 21700 divided by 231 = 93.9393939393 E (recurring decimal)...
And much more... of course â the change HB makes to the Book kills the higher mathematics of the book.
John Griffith & Leo Gillis have also been doing a neat bit of work on Lashtal in a similar vein, but they remove all the verse numbers to get a total character count of 23112 from the Book. But I was inspired to produce a right angled triangle from the book as well. Using the integers 231 & 200 (significant numbers!) I get an area of precisely 23100! Hehehe.
Alrah. 93 93/93.
p.s. - there is an online right angled triangle calculator available here to check this number: www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
Frater Superior of the OTO has today published a very substantial third paper and extensive appendices explaining the decision to implement a change to Liber CCXX.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@LAShTAL said
"Frater Superior of the OTO has today published a very substantial third paper and extensive appendices explaining the decision to implement a change to Liber CCXX.
www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6188.msg76917;"
I've read it. He says Crowley must have 'forgot' that the 'fill me' in the Evocation of Bartzabel was really a 'kill me'. In other words - he's defending a two typo theory.
""I think it possible that, when writing âBartzabelâ in May 1910, Crowley had simply forgotten
that his StÚle Paraphrase had originally read âkill me,â and working fast, copied out the wording in
Thelema with slight variants, or was writing from memory of his readings in Thelema. The MS. of
âBartzabelâ does have a white heat quality about the writing. ""Of course... he's assuming that the original paraphrase of the Stele says 'kill me'...
(It doesn't, but I have to respect the confidentiality of my source about this at this time, and I'm afraid I cannot say further right now. All in good time... so be in good cheer! I am!
) -
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@LAShTAL said
"Frater Superior of the OTO has today published a very substantial third paper and extensive appendices explaining the decision to implement a change to Liber CCXX.
www.lashtal.com/forum/index.php?topic=6188.msg76917;"
Paul, thanks for cross-posting this here and sharing it with us.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Alrah said
"
Of course... he's assuming that the original paraphrase of the Stele says 'kill me'...(It doesn't, but I have to respect the confidentiality of my source about this at this time, and I'm afraid I cannot say further right now. All in good time... so be in good cheer! I am!
)"Are you implying that the "Vellum Book" exists, and you know who has it?
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
"Distrust any explanation whatsoever. Disreali said: Never ask anyone to dinner who has to be explained. All explanations are intended to cover up lies, injustices, or shames. The Truth is radiantly simple."
Liber al II:30, with new commentary:
Anyway; been away for a while doing my own thing, I come back to the whole kill/fill thing even more certain that the whole thing is rubbish, as a friend of mine said: A fish rots from the head first. I have withdrawn my support from (C)OTO and will be attending to my own work without being disturbed by their antics.
The slaves shall serve.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
Archaeus,
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
@Archaeus said
""Distrust any explanation whatsoever. Disreali said: Never ask anyone to dinner who has to be explained. All explanations are intended to cover up lies, injustices, or shames. The Truth is radiantly simple.""
Thank you for that quote; best quote ever. I can't stand these "walking brains" (scholars, bureaucrats, politicians etc.) invoking "because" all the time - and getting away with it! - fooling the ordinary man for being "intelligent", when the case often really is severe retardation!
These "air-heads", "Rainmen" whatever; are destroying the world as a whole.
The cure is simply not to argue; not to listen. My former psychopathic boss; my Master and teacher learned me all about this skill. I used to come to her with this "problem", and she talked and reasoned for a while, and finally I left the room with this good feeling - only to find out a week later, that the problem remained and that I was still angry...
That's why there is a point in time when I simply stop listening, because if you do listen you are "lost" in the pit called because...
EDIT: Oh yes, about the matter at hand: It is so simple, the most simplest thing in the world, but these "masterminds", these "air-heads" fail to understand simple logic:
YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT OUT OF BOTH PERSPECTIVES - "TO CHANGE OR NOT TO CHANGE"... THIS MAKES THE CHANGING FROM "FILLME" TO "KILLME", TO BE NOTHING BUT A VERY "VAGUE" AND "SPECULATIVE" CASE - SINCE THE OPPOSITE IS JUST AS TRUE!
THIS IS THE MOST SIMPLE LOGIC THAT EVEN A SMALL CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND - BUT THE "INTELLECTUAL" - THE "AIR-HEAD" FAILS HORRIBLY IN THIS...
Love is the law, love under will.
Peace
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
@Metzareph said
"
"I've read it. He says Crowley must have 'forgot' that the 'fill me' in the Evocation of Bartzabel was really a 'kill me'. In other words - he's defending a two typo theory."So according to this, Crowley was Mr. Magoo and not the Magus of the Aeon."
Basically! According to Gunther lineage then Crowley was forgetful, negligent, and was a chess master with a bad memory (that's a first!). Or he was overworked, too drug addled to cope, lazy (that explains K2 then..).
I chalk it up as psychological projections on their part. HB makes a mistake with kill & fill so Crowley must have made a mistake. HB is overworked while editing the Holy Books so Crowley must have been overworked. HB forgets to make footnotes so Crowley must have been forgetful and negligent too. Crowley took cocaine at times (such interesting effects on the ego)... is this why HB cannot really imagine himself wrong on this issue despite all the evidence to the contrary? Actually, I would seriously like to know if HB has a drug problem.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
I got about 8 pages into H.B.'s third document, and do plan on going over some remarks within it, when time permits. For now though, I would like to point out a statement made in his second argument.
That is, "I am grateful to the the Officers of the A.'.A.'. for consenting to the release of part of this ritual material. This was done in the public interest, so as to further our
understanding of Crowleyâs intention with Liber Legis". - H.B.If someone wouldn't mind helping me understand English, saying "the Officers of the A.'.A.'." implies one of two things: 1) ALL of the Officers of the A.'.A.'., or 2) THE Officers of the A.'.A.'. (as in, the 'main ones'). Maybe it implies a third thing. If someone would please help me understand this not-so-subtle wording, I will be grateful. As I said, even though English is regrettably my first and only fluent language, I still have a hard time understanding what may appear to others as "clear".
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
Has anyone noticed that the scan of the handwritten MS of the Evocation of Bartzabel, contains a correction by Crowley at the top of the page? The correction is written in a heavier pen, which suggests Crowley checked the MS and corrected it after he had written it. The point being that he had the opportunity to correct the 'fill me' if he'd considered it a typo - and he didn't.
@Az - I think what HB means by the phrase "The Officers of the A.'.A.'." is "The Officers of THE A.'.A.'." Gunther, Wasserman and Breeze typically take the attitude that their A.'.A.'. is the* one and only* and have even had the temerity to suggest that lineages such as the Soror Meral A.'.A.'., or the McMurtry lineage, or the Motta lineage currently run by Ray Eales, should all change their name and not call themselves A.'.A.'. anymore!
What can we say about such rank egotism? Well... here's a picture!
http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae111/alrah/Loto_zpseac97ac0.jpg
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
Azidonis - I believe the talk given by James Wasserman last December answers you question about the officers of the A.'.A.'. referred to by HB. According to Wasserman there are only 3 officers. Here is the transcript of his speech.
"James Wasserman speaking on Dec 16th 2012 at the 'Swirling Star Lodge', Florida.
"To begin with lineages...
In July of 1976, Motta and Grady declared magical war on each other. The head of the O.T.O. and the praemonstrator of A.'.A.'. each said "No" for the first time in our history. Crowley had worn the unified crown of both orders until his death in 1947. He passed that on to Karl Germer. If we date the Thelemic OTO to 1912, when Crowley joined and formed the English speaking OTO, the alliance between OTO and A.'.A.'. was a matter of course for half a century, and as far as we know the question of division or conflict between A.'.A.'. and OTO never once arose between 1962 and 1976. There were no such things as A.'.A.'. lineages.
During their negotiations in July of 1976, Grady accepted Motta's assertions of headship of A.'.A.'. If Motta was stating it Grady assumed it must have been true! Who else would dare make such a statement? Grady certainly never said anything like "Well, Howdy Marcello I'm Grady McMurtry from the Jane Wolf lineage, and I'm happy you're saying hello from over there in the Karl Germer line. Uhuh. The entire modern concept of A.'.A.'. lineages came about after the show down between these two leaders in 1976 and I know this because I was right in the middle.
Grady was absolutely clear about the relationship between OTO and A.'.A.'. He wrote in a July 21st 1976 letter to Motta that A.'.A.'. is the flaming heart of OTO. On the other hand, Grady was careful never to claim A.'.A.'. leadership, while fiercly defending his legitimate authority as head of the OTO. Motta never expressed any interest in the OTO, he repeatedly said he had no interest in the OTO, until he learned that Crowley had willed the copyrights to the OTO.
People today, listening to claims of a McMurtry lineage of A.'.A.'. or a Phyllis Seckler lineage of A'.A.'. simply have no idea how totally off the wall, such claims are, when viewed against both the spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. and the tradition of OTO.
I believe there is one A.'.A.'. with one set of officers; one praemonstrator, one imperator, and one cancellarius. Just as there is one OTO, with one outer head, one treasurer and one secretary. We have at last been able to dispense with such inane characterizations as 'the Caliphate OTO'.
If you have affiliated yourselves (I hope no-one in this room has) but if you have affiliated yourself with one of the outlying groups bragging about A.'.A'. lineages, you might consider correcting your mistake sooner rather than later. There is no shame in sincerely searching for truth; learning that you have been temporarily mislead by false claims, and using that as a learning opportunity to make better informed decisions. Believe me, we have all had to do it." "
I think it's important to point out that this account appears to make some assertions that are not supported by the evidence, or are presented in such a way that do not reflect an accurate picture of what went on during that period of time.
That Grady McMurtry did not claim leadership of the A.'.A.'. is really not surprising since his wife at the time, Phyllis Seckler, was his A.'.A.'. superior. Apart from Wasserman's bald assertions there is no evidence that Grady accepted Motta as headship of the A.'.A.'. It's far more likely that Grady said something long the lines of: if he want's to head his own A.'.A.'. down in Tennessee it's nothing to do with me. The idea that Grady would acknowledge Motta as THE HEAD of A.'.A.'. and thus the superior of both himself and Phyllis is frankly ridiculous, and even in the fleetingly unlikely event that he did so, it was not his call to make.
As for the statement that "Motta never expressed any interest in the OTO", Motta still believed he was the head of the OTO in July 1976. He was extremely paranoid and suspected some subterfuge in the matter of Germer's Will. It was at this time that Wasserman, Daniel Gunther and Richard Gernon deserted Motta and flew to California to take Minerval initiations in the OTO. Then on the 26th July 1976 Grady was recognized by the Superior Court of the State of California as the "Duly constituted and authorised representative of the Ordo Templi Orientis", and this so infuriated Motta that he decided to establish his own OTO in the United States and he immediately began filing papers through his A.'.A.'. branch in Tennessee to begin a corporation known as the Society Ordo Templi Orientis, more commonly known as SOTO.
So this idea that there was any kind of gentleman's agreement resolving a 'magical war' in which the spoils were divided up and Grady got the OTO while Marcello got the A.'.A.'. is pure fantasy fiction. Really - Mr Wasserman has missed is true calling and robbed the world of fiction writing of a very inventive and imaginative mind.
-
On The Great Kill/Fill Debate, I've held back on making any strong statements one way or the other. I did make a preliminary, first impression statement on page 2 of this thread:
www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11896The Outer Head of O.T.O. is making a textual change in digital and physical publications of The Book of the Law published by O.T.O. (Note that I have characterized this as a textual change in publications, not as a textual change in The Book of the Law. The distinction is at least somewhat important.)
The most complete explanation of the decision and its basis is given here: oto-usa.org/static/legi - I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read this explanation thoroughly and carefully. At the very least, I don't think any intelligent discussion of the matter can be carried out without understanding whence it arises.
Though I hope that anyone seriously interested in the subject will read the rest of this post, I'll cut to the punch line now and confirm that College of Thelema and Temple of Thelema will not, at the present time, be making this change in any digital or physical publications of The Book of the Law under our control. If there is ever a time that I order such a change, it will be due to facts not presently available to me.
In order to put my later remarks into context, I need to talk a bit about Bill Breeze. This is partly because I believe there are long-standing rumors and opinions afloat about Bill's and my relationship (especially around my reasons for departing O.T.O.), and I might as well set that matter straight, on the public record; and partly because I'm in a better place than most people (certainly most people on this forum) to talk about him and (at least indirectly) address the question of his motives. (These motives have been questioned by some people who have been critical of the textual change.)
Bottom line: I trust him completely. I don't always agree with him, and I trust him completely (on more or less anything - not just this present issue). I am certain that his editorial decision is an honest, clean decision. It is an expression of the deepest motives of his character, and performed in the context of responsibilities he holds truly sacred. This is an area he just wouldn't fuck around with. - And the explanation he wrote at oto-usa.org/static/legi strikes me as completely authentic to the man I know.
I haven't seen Bill in about 20 years. Nonetheless, I still consider him a friend and, especially, a brother. My resignation from O.T.O. in 1992 had nothing to do with him or any lack of confidence in him as O.T.O.'s leader. I'm substantially responsible for putting him in that office,*** and to this day I have no regrets about that (and would do it again). Although I wish my letter of resignation from O.T.O. had not gone public a few years ago (it was private), anyone who has seen a copy will know why I left (which, in a yes-I-know-it's-too-brief nutshell, is that one path of service had reached its conclusion and I had already been called to another).
[*** About a month before the election, when I was one of only two candidates to be Grady's successor, I learned from Helen Parsons Smith that Bill's name was being entered into consideration. I called him. We had a friendly chat, and I said that if I truly thought he stood a chance of winning, I'd pull my name out of consideration at once - I didn't think that job was my right path. When, on the election weekend, it became clear to me that he would win if I didn't create a split in the "Blue Equinox Faction," I asked that anyone who had planned to vote for me now support Bill. I haven't any information on how well I would have done if I'd remained in the race, and it was an honor to be one of the three candidates; but I do know that, at that point, it was a foregone conclusion who would win. I remain happy with all of that 27 years later.]For several years, and though living thousands of miles apart, Bill and I were much like close roommates. (This is, of course, my assessment looking back; I don't know how he'd characterize it). We were on the phone with lengthy conversations many times most weeks (at a time when long distance charges really meant something!) and more or less knew what was going on in each other's lives and minds much of the time. Heck, he practically feels like an amicably moved-apart ex. (No, the first place your mind went with that was not part of our relationship.
) And we did some really important work together IMHO. I'm proud of what we accomplished.So... my main point is not to praise this particular Caesar, and most certainly isn't to bury him. I just thought that my remarks following would benefit from this context, and thought it about time to put the above on the record.
Returning to oto-usa.org/static/legi ...
I don't contest any of the main facts that were cited. As usual, there is a range of certainty in things that we "know" - what the Emerald Tablet distinguishes as (a) True without falsehood, (b) certain, and (c) most true. - Or, from another approach, there are agreed upon facts; ideas implicitly but not explicitly present in those facts; informed speculation by qualified people; and other speculation.
I do not contest the main facts. And I, like Hymenaeus Beta (and many others), approach this from the ethical commitment to obey Thelema's prophet in the matter. I probably would always yield, on these matters, to any final, certain, uncontroverted evidence of Crowley's clear decision on an ambiguity on The Book of the Law.
H.B. and I do, however, weigh the evidence differently. Were we on the same jury, I think we'd have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and our deliberations would spiral around what weight to give to the respective facts.
I'm going to summarize what I believe is H.B.'s threshold argument. However, there are so many elements and nuances that I encourage anyone to read his full presentation for yourself, and not be misled by my reductionism.
Crowley's personal, extra-special copy of Thelema (which was the first publication of Liber L.) contained important pencil corrections by him. One of these was a pencil correction of the letter "f" to the letter "k" in the passage under discussion. Crowley evidently made this correction sometime between mid-1909 and the end of 1912. He then published The Book of the Law many times in the decades following, never changing that one letter in the publication.
H.B.'s argument (as I read it) is substantially that the book wherein this correction was penned should be regarded (for various reasons given) as Crowley's master correction volume, and that the change didn't occur in subsequent publications of Liber L. because of poor editorial and proofing habits and procedures.
I weigh the facts differently. I rate the notes in Crowley's personal copy of Thelema as quite important. I also take it as quite important that he never saw fit (even with poor editorial practices) to ensure that this matter was corrected. This is especially true with the 1938 edition which, despite its numerous acknowledged errors, was touted by Crowley as his "finally got it right" edition - a fact pivotal to his public prediction of the greatest of wars nine months later (made nine months before Hitler invaded Poland). I think there are several remaining questions. Based on evidence presently available to me, I must conclude that the final word on this matter by the Prophet is to leave it as previously published.
Some asides...
The Resh issue is a distraction. It's a spin-off of the main issue, and most likely to stir emotional responses. Along the same lines as H.B., I think that as long as we take standing instructions as particular examples of, "perform the adoration that is taught thee by thy Superior," we don't have to mingle that issue with this more fundamental one.
I also want to say something about the issue of religious freedom. This is an issue where H.B. and I deeply agree in principle, and have nearly opposite views in practice. He has said many times (my paraphrase from memory) that to avoid sectarianism or denominationalism in Thelema, and maximize the sovereign right of any individual regarding their own relationship with Liber Legis, the Tunis Comment provides the key, and people should just not discuss the Book or its meaning. Having similar motives, I strongly hold that the only way to prevent religious tyranny and to maximize the sovereign right of individuals to their own understanding of the Book, is to discuss it constantly, to actively exchange views, insights, and responses in a spirit of tolerance that doesn't require anyone to agree with you; that is, a cultural of tolerance and active sharing on the matter. - I mention this because the broader matter was touched on late in the blog piece.
There are two more pieces of evidence I'd like to see, things that could weigh into any future decisions I make as Visible Head of Temple of Thelema.
First: I wish someone could tell me when the pencil notes on 3:37 were added to the manuscript. This is an important matter for proper exegesis. It seems clear to me that they were added at some time after the original dictation was taken, at least soon enough after for Crowley to pick up a different writing instrument, and no later than when the typescripts were made that were the basis of Crowley's 1904 Christmas gifts. It seems that the time frame is anything from a few minutes later to a (very) few months later, and the exact timing might weigh into my views. We recognize at least some post-dictation adjustments, most pointedly Rose's clarification of two passages, which occurred some (presumably short) time after the dictation. (The next few minutes? The next few days? Weeks or months later?) There is some gray area here, therefore, in terms of what should be considered as part of the "original manuscript."
[EDIT: As remarked below, HB says these typescripts were made before leaving Egypt, i.e., immediately after the dictation - within a few days at most. This almost certainly means that all the penciled corrections (verse numbers, "fill me" note) were written within days of his having written the poetic paraphrases, and while he had the original paraphrase in his immediate possession. If this is, indeed, when and how this all occurred, then it strengthens my sense that "fill me" is as authentic a part of the original manuscript as are Rose's additions.]
Second: There is a Crowley passage I previously mentioned, but can't find. It thought it was in Equinox of the Gods or the New Comment, but couldn't find it in either place. As I referenced it earlier,
Crowley addressed this in the New Comment (or somewhere - I'd have to go dig it out). He acknowledged that something in his memory was insisting the word should be "kill," he was emotionally defiant in the face of the manuscript, and yet he then yielded and published the manuscript faithfully as it had come to him - and it said "fill." If that's his conclusion ion the 1920s, it's more than good enough for me. (If this becomes "a thing," I'll have to dig all that out sometime.)
I'd like to weigh this passage into my assessment, and won't do it until I have the passage - so I know that memory isn't playing tricks on how I remember it. That is, I want to be able to quote it accurately and in context. It's in something that I read sometime in the last four decades (which includes essentially everything written by Crowley and much correspondence, etc.). I think this passage may be important to understanding the final will and word of the Prophet on this matter. If anyone can find the passage, I'd appreciate you passing it along to me.
Thank you for reading thus far.
"Motta never expressed any interest in the OTO, he repeatedly said he had no interest in the OTO, until he learned that Crowley had willed the copyrights to the OTO."
There is a difference between claims regarding the OTO and claims regarding the AA. Two very different orders with very different purposes.
This whole thing (including the Fill/Kill debacle) boils down to control and not the "spiritual reality of A.'.A.'. nor tradition of OTO".Also, Liber Vesta... seriously?
